With the explosion of LPVO's is the 2-10/2.5-10 optic still relevant?  For 5.56 it would seem the 1-8 and now 1-10's would be the new king, no?

Yes, they have better low light gathering ability and field of view at maximum power because the use a larger front lens. Also most 1-4, 1-6, 1-8 scopes are not a true 1x most are 1.1x until you get into scopes over $1,000.

My thinking is that the eyebox on 1-8's and 1-10's is pretty tight and decent quality ones are quite expensive. There's quite a bit of people out there that pay for an lpvo but don't actually use the 1x often enough to warrant the premium and the worse eyebox on higher magnifications. Also there's a new trend of having an lpvo with an offset rds which makes no sense to me and I would rather get a 2-10 with an offset.

I think so, but the general optic buying market obviously doesn’t.  There aren’t many options left in the mid power (2-10x, 3-12x) tactical scope market, and only maybe 1 or 2 that are “top tier.”

That market has mostly been eaten up by LPVOs and the newer 3-18x options (which I suppose could be categorized as “mid power”).

Some very good points.

Yes, and this is roughly why I was going to say yes. Until LPVOs can open up their objectives, the lower power traditional scopes are always going to have some advantages, even if those are increasingly encroached upon by LPVOs.

SWFA makes a very lightweight 2.5-10 (9.5 ounces?) that you can get with a duplex or some kind of reticle. No link because I keep getting 403 forbidden from them... That might be a nice fit for a lightweight walking rifle (groundhogs and such).
I don't think 3-9's are going anywhere either!

If you think of an LPVO as a red dot with magnification, and a MPVO as a precision scope with a wider FOV, they each have a niche for a more reasonable price. The LPVOs that encompass both categories can "get both" with a price to match, for a while.

A Burris XTR II 2-10x is on order, so my opinion may change soon.

My 1.8-10 USOptics is a great magnification range

Heavy as hell, but clear and durable

Bronc

I run a 2.5-10 on my AR10 and a 1-4 or red dot on 556

After much deliberation, I have decided it is the type I will be putting on my 16" 6.5 Grendel build.

Yeah I'm building a SPRish RECCEish setup and thinking about glass options.

I am in the same boat with LVPOs.  I started out with a 10x Swaro Habicht Nova, then got some SWFAs: 3x9 HD, 3x15, 5x20 HD (all 42 or 50 mm objectives) .  

Then this year I picked up a Swampfox Arrowhead 1-10 to try an LPVO on a Grendel. I like the scope, I can BAC with it on 1X, but by and large I am never down that low and eye relief is picky with the smaller objective.

I won't be getting another LPVO.  I would rather stick a 3-15x50 or higher on it and put an offset Red Dot on as needed.

In 3 gun a long time ago, a lot of shooters had 3-9 scopes and offset red dots for fast up close. Only thing is you got stuck in open class. Back then there were very few LPVO, Weaver made a 1-3, then Burris brought out there XTR followed by a few more scopes.

Your experience mimics my own when it comes to the higher mag LVPOs. The lower magnification ones are fine, I have no problem with a 1-4 or 1-6 as their eye relief is significantly better. Above 6x just give me a FFP scope that's 3-x and I'm good.

Yes. Larger objective which helps with exit pupil.
Yes. As long as it doesn't weigh over 28oz, unless you're into chunky (I personally like em thick, especially 34mm optics).
Yes. If you need parallax adjustment (I prefer parallax down to 15-25 yards for helping my old eyes when shooting rimfire), most 2-10 have this feature.
No. If you need maximum FOV on the low end, a 1x gives you the best FOV.



I will say that this was my favorite 2-10 (among others viper pst gen I, Gen II). The eye box is amazing on 2x .. incredibly friendly. 10x is a little tight but not as tight as the others I mentioned. 42mm obj and 34mm tube .. its just a great scope except that it weighs 27oz. It's built like a tank. Even if the turrets do not lock, they take a good amount of effort to adjust.



Mostly this right here, for me and my experience at least. I just cant get over the eye box on 1-8 scopes at 8x... the Accupower/Credo 1-8 is the exception because the 28mm obj does have a tad bit better eyebox on 8x (Yes it is noticeable). Currently loving the 1-6 Credo HX SFPs Green and Red Dot with Hunter holds.. trying to decide which one of those I will keep or sell. Just sold my Accupower 1-8x28 (great scope, just a little too heavy for my suppressed SBRs).

So I have my eye on the 2.5-15x42 Credo (if i prefer SFP) and the 3-18 Tenmile (for FFP) for longer range ... going that route for anything above 6x.

I recently picked up a weaver tactical 2-10x36. 36mm objective lense is very bright, even more so with Japanese glass. I think the range is perfect for a  rifle that is accurate enough for sub 800 yard self defense.

Unless you’re spending good money on glass I’d personally buy the larger lense

I like my athlon 2.5-15x50. Imo its a great recce scope.

Enough magnification to shoot sub moa at 100y. More than enough to bang steel as far as I can see.

How are these? How is the reticle setup?

https://www.natchezss.com/burris-veracity-rifle-scope-2-10x42mm-30mm-ballistic-e2-reticle-sfp-black-matte.html

Relevant to my interests OP. I have a Zeiss V4 LPVO which I find to be to bulky and would likely spend 95% of the time at 4x. Would like something with more magnification,  but is smaller and lighter. Would do and offset RMR if 2x-3x on the low end messed with my brain too much for thing close up.

I have one of these, with a BDC reticle, on it's way to me.
It was supposed to be here on the 21st. Hopefully the USPS
gets their shit together and delivers it soon.

I have a Bushnell Nitro 2.5-10 on 300blk bolt action. Little on the heavy side but it's a fantastic optic.

It's still relevant if you have a purpose for it.

Nah, The LPVO's are cool, but I prefer a normal scope and 2.5 to 10 is PERFECT. The larger objective will gather more light, and 2.5 to 10 is still low enough magnification to utilize holdovers in a SFP, if that's your thing. LPVO's work VERY WELL on AR's, but I'm not throwing one on my deer rifle and replacing my 2-10 VX3 just yet...

I just got mine. It is ridiculously small and light, it feels like a toy. That being said looking through it, the quality is wonderful. Now I just need to decide what it's going on

I have one of the swfa 2-10x on a ruger ranch 556. Fits the lightweight concept really well

Similar.  With the points stated several times already a 2.5-10 is excellent in my opinion.

Range reports, please.  These are pretty new (out for a year now IIRC), and a bunch of people would like some reviews.

Released mid-2018.

I wouldn't probably use mine on an AR. Tight eye relief. Hard to find 1" mounts I like. For BDC I prefer ffp, since otherwise it's a 10x scope with the ability to scan/spot on lower mag but the main functionality of the scope isn't useable at any other mag level.

Any quality scope is still relevant. 2.5x10 covers everything from 50 to 700+ yards.

Dark Lord of Optics has done some reviews on these.


Mine came in last night. I'm going to mount it on a light weight 20" AR I threw together a few years ago.

I ended up getting a WARNE 20 MOA light weight mount to pair with it

ETA: Paired it up to the rifle tonight. Weighs in at 7lbs 13oz. I'll snap a pic later and upload it

I have the Burris XTR II on one of my PSA .308s and I like everything about it except the weight. It’s not small or light.

Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40 Firedot TMR (now superseded by VX Freedom of comparable specs) and offset Leupold Deltapoint Pro.

Each is QD mounted, Larue and ADM respectively.

My most commonly used hunting rifle wears a VX6-HD 2-12x42.

Yes, midpowered scopes with their more forgiving eyebox and low light friendly exit pupils are not going anywhere.

I've been feeling that an LPVO used like a red dot takes up a lot of viewing area blocking a little forward view.  My only experience with LPVO's are with Steiner P4Xi, Viper PST gen2 1-6 and Primary Arms ACSS 1-6.  I got a Viper PST Gen1 2.5-10x32 and mounted a micro red dot on it at the 1 o'clock position off the tube and it's perfect.  Good cheek weld when looking through the 2.5-10, then just move my head up slightly to acquire the MDRS.  I found the 1 o'clock position to be perfect as I move my head up...going from a cheek weld to chin weld, my head moves over to the right slightly.  Also, by moving my head up slightly to acquire the MDRS, I'm in a more upright position and better suited for situational awareness.

(Yes, the MDRS is a Sightmark.  It's not actually too bad and I'm just messing around with it at this point.....don't judge me!!!)

I love a lightweight scope for a "do everything" rifle, and most of those happen to be in the 3-9x and 2-10x range.  I'm really pleased with my 3-9x VX-R Patrol on my SPR build, even if it is a bit dated by today's standards.  At about a pound, it's one of the lighter optics with daylight bright Firedot illumination.  

The new entry level and midrange optics have really pushed the boundaries of what you can get in a sub $800 price point.  Higher magnification range, improved reticles, illumination, and glass quality are far better today than they used to be.  My 6.5 Grendel and Creedmoor both have 3-15x SWFA and 2.5-15x Athlon scopes that are extremely capable, but quite a bit heavier.  While the new LPVOs are really impressive, the small objective means diminished light gathering that could ruin a hunt at dusk.  If I had a spare $2k in my pocket, I'd love to try the Razor G3 1-10x, but that's a bit outside my budget at the moment.

In the meantime, a trustworthy 3-9x or 2-10x is an excellent choice - with or without a backup red dot.  That SWFA Ultralight 2.5-10x is pretty high on my wishlist at the moment - I could put that plus a micro red dot and still have a lighter setup than my Leupold!

A quality 3-9x40 with an offset RMR is far superior to any LPVO.   You get superior magnified performance and instant 1x.

Not really.

I wish someone would recognize that offset red dots are viable, and build a compact scope with 12-14x on the high end that weighs less that 25 ounces.

Our Kentucky Long 2-12x comes in at 24 ounces with a 44mm objective lens and a resulting really nice eyebox. The Warhawk 2-10x which we developed last year but never got the chance to release will be similar but with a 34mm main tube and better field of view characteristics (better turrets too). But the KL 2-12x is out of stock for now and the Warhawk never even got released before the panic buy hit and we had to make some tough decisions which resulting in our precision scope projects getting put on the back burner.

I post this just to say, what you're talking about is possible to develop even from a relatively small and new company. I don't have one to sell you so it isn't a BUY NOW! shill post.


I've lurked this thread for awhile and debated posting my opinion here, because the truth is, I'm still forming my opinion. It's not a black and white "THIS is better than THAT and if you don't agree you are a dumbass" situation. Everyone's eyes are different. Everyone has different priorities on what is most important to them. Everyone has a slightly different concept of what kind of shooting they want to be good at.

So, this is my personal opinion, so far, and not Swampfox official policy, and quite subject to change.

1. For me and my eyes, I can "Bidon aiming concept" pretty well with both eyes open at 1x, 1.5x, and 2x. Anything beyond that gets sketchy. There are guys who can BAC with both eyes open at 3x and maybe if I worked really hard on it, I could, but right now I can't. I'm rubbish with our 3x prism and both eyes open, I have to close one eye even at 5 yards. With a 2-10x or 2-12x as the only aiming system on a rifle I lose just a little bit of an edge in close quarters compared to a true 1x. That's the price paid.

2. In exchange for paying the price of losing 1x, what do you gain? Well, you gain a benefit at longer ranges, because you can get some precision scope features beyond what an LPVO can do. The biggest ones for me are an adjustable parallax and larger (yes heavier too) objective lens for better eyebox and light transmission. One of the first questions I asked when I got into the R&D process with new optics was, how come we can't do an adjustable parallax in a 1-8x or 1-10x? I don't understand WHY mathematically, but the essential answer is, you could build the assembly onto the side of the optic but it wouldn't actually change parallax that much in a LPVO application. Turning the parallax knob wouldn't really DO anything worth the extra cost, weight, and complexity.

But when you're shooting an LPVO, even the best ones out there like a Razor Gen 3, now guys are expecting to be able to get first round hits at 600, 700 yards with a 5.56 gas gun with these things, and you can absolutely do that, but you're having to accomplish that with a parallax fixed at 100 yards. It's definitely not ideal, both for shot point of impact consistency and for target area focus/resolution. It's just not as good as it COULD be if you had a parallax knob on the side that actually did its job.

3. Yeah you pay a size and weight penalty when you step up from LPVO to precision scope, but it's up to the user how much that matters. Speaking from our own product line, our Arrowhead 1-10x is already big chonkus status at 20 ounces to begin with. So moving to the 2-12x Kentucky Long I go from a 24mm objective to a 44mm objective setup with adjustable parallax and a FFP grid reticle (instead of a SFP lollipop reticle), and I pay a 4 ounce weight penalty for it. Put it another way, stepping up to the 2-12x increases my scope weight by 17%. That's noticeable and it matters, but it's not for nothing either-- I get a real performance gain at medium to long range in exchange for that 4 ounces.

So, for ME at least, I think of it this way. The LPVO is best for a rifle where most of your shooting is inside 200 yards and you'll be shooting the rifle offhand, standing unsupported quite a bit. If you are anticipating longer engagement ranges for the most part and that's your focus, and there's a smaller chance of an "Oh shit!" snap shot happening at 20 yards, then maybe you can make the decision to lose the true 1x down low in exchange for greater performance at longer distances. The use case dictates equipment and for me this is the tipping point.

4. I think the natural inclination is to say "why a 2-10x when you can get a 1-10x" and compare the small precision scopes to LPVOs as I've done above. But we can also go in the other direction, especially when we abandon snap shooting through the primary optic entirely. If I'm mounting a 45 degree offset RDS why do I even care for a 1x LPVO or a 2-10x? Do I try to come up with some complex rationale for using the 1x/2x in certain CQ situations but the red dot in other situations? Or is it better to train myself to think "anything inside 50 yards, select red dot, anything beyond 50 yards, select primary optic" and draw a more firm line for myself in terms of what scope gets used when?

I ask this because I've seen guys in competition situations randomly flipping their throw levers to 1x, or canting their rifles over to use their red dots, and they don't even know why they are doing one or the other. They seem confused and caught trying to choose between two optics that do the same thing. But once I've made the decision that I'm going to go with a secondary red dot for up close shooting, why should I stop at my 2-12x scope? Why not go one step further and use the 3-18x Kentucky Long which again is another step up in weight and size but DAMN it's fantastic at 300 yards and beyond. You can get a LOT of work done with a scope that does everything from 3x to 18x very well, once you abandon the idea of reflex shooting with that scope. So the question about this class of scope isn't always "why not less magnification", we can also ask "why not more magnification?"

I don't have all the answers to this, even for myself. These are just the parameters I am personally using to explore this question.

I have been running a TA-100 ACOG with an offset RMR for years.  I hunt coyotes, jackrabbits, and do 3 gun.  Here is my system for when to use the primary (ACOG) or my RMR.

ACOG = if I have support (barricade, shooting sticks, even taking a knee)

RMR = no support (offhand)

So, the decision is taken out of the equation.  It is all about whether I have support.  My decision on whether I can get support us usually based on how urgent the shot is.  

Dynamic things tend to be close and the RMR makes sense.  I don't have time to get support.  When coyote hunting, I sometimes get surprised at close range from a coyote coming from an angle that I can't reach shooting from my sticks.  I quickly remove the gun from the sticks, roll to the RMR and make the shot.

Any situation that allows me to take a support position usually is farther away and not dynamic.  This is where I use the ACOG to make the shot.  I get the advantage of the better sight picture and I have time.

I like that rationale, that makes a ton of sense to me given your setup. Well played for sure.

How does 10x look in that SWFA? The eye relief and small objective throws me off. Are there any other lightweight 2-10's?

Thanks Mike.  I think the key thing is to have a clear system to eliminate unnecessary delays when engaging a target with 2 sighting systems.  Automatic is a good thing.  The ones I can think of are:

Near vs far target

Supported vs Unsupported gun mount

Stationary vs moving target

Reactive vs proactive engagement

Pick one and drill it until it is second nature.

Depends what you consider lightweight. Burris Signature HD 2-10x40 is listed at 17.6oz, Leupold VX-5HD 2-10x42 is 16.4oz, Bushnell Engage and Triji Accupoints start getting north of 20oz.

At 19 oz, you can get a SWFA HD 3x9 42mm objective.  FFP, VG glass.  I have one.

It's not bad at all. Lots of people talk bad about it on the netz, but I seriously doubt they've even been behind one.
Even with the smaller objective, it's a nice bright sight picture

Excellent post Mike

I've got a PST Gen 2 2-10x on my Grendel SBR and I absolutely love it

I second this. Just got this scope and it’s AWESOME. Adjustable parallax is cool which you don’t find on many 2-10 power scopes

I just purchased a 3-9 so I guess this thread is now a few years ahead of me.

Bolded, makes sense to me.

I plan on moving my 2-10 to a DMR style ar10 and putting a 1-6 on the 300blk bolt action